MOFA on Taiwan’s status
In a commentary by James Wang (王景弘) that appeared in the Taipei Times, the legal status of the Cairo Declaration was called into question (“Distortions about Cairo Declaration aid China,” Feb. 5, page 8). To prevent similar arguments from causing confusion in the international community over Taiwan’s status, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) would like to provide the following clarification and ensure an accurate understanding of the facts.
I. The historical significance of the Cairo Declaration: At a summit held in Cairo on Nov. 23, 1943, the leaders of the Republic of China (ROC), the UK and the US agreed that the territories Japan had stolen from China, including Manchuria, Formosa (Taiwan) and the Pescadores (Penghu), should be restored to the Republic of China. The terms of the agreement were published on Dec. 1 that same year in a joint communique that became widely known as the Cairo Declaration.
In July 1945, the ROC, the UK, the US and the then-Soviet Union issued the Potsdam Proclamation, stipulating that the terms of the Cairo Declaration were to be carried out. Moreover, the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, signed on Sept. 2 that year, clearly states Japan’s acceptance of the Potsdam Proclamation and, by extension, the Cairo Declaration.
II. The legal status of the Cairo Declaration: The Cairo Declaration stands as a firm commitment by the leaders of the UK, the US and the ROC over the disposition of Japanese territories after World War II, following which the ROC government duly sent troops to Taiwan in 1945 to accept the Japanese surrender and recover the land.
Furthermore, its provisions were again accepted by Japan in the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951. Taiwan and Penghu were formally returned to the Republic of China in accordance with the Treaty of Peace between the ROC and Japan of 1952.
Although the declaration is not a “treaty” or an “agreement” in name, it was concluded in the 1978 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf case put before the International Court of Justice that a joint communique could be considered an international agreement. That the Cairo Declaration is an international agreement is therefore beyond doubt.
III. The concrete implementation of the terms of the Cairo Declaration reflects the desire of the countries involved to restore Taiwan and Penghu to the Republic of China: If the UK and the US did not believe that the Cairo Declaration was a legally binding pledge to the ROC, why did they not then take over Taiwan at the time of the Japanese surrender? Meanwhile, not a single country opposed the restoration of ROC nationality to the residents of Taiwan, and the official US position was recorded as being that it agreed to the retrocession of Taiwan and Penghu to the ROC.
Then-US president Harry Truman, for instance, stated in a press conference on Jan. 5, 1950, that “Formosa was surrendered to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek [蔣介石], and for the past four years the United States and other allied powers have accepted the exercise of Chinese [ROC] authority over the island.” This statement clearly reflects the US government’s position at the time.
IV. Taiwan’s legal status has been confirmed: Although certain government officials in the US, the UK and elsewhere argued in the 1950s that Taiwan’s status had yet to be decided, this position was borne out of practical politics and, since the 1970s, has failed to gain traction among governments around the world.
In The Creation of States in International Law by James Crawford, a renowned UK academic of international law who happens to have an in-depth knowledge of cross-strait affairs, Taiwan’s status is given as being Chinese territory (the Republic of China, as far as we are concerned).
Clearly, the notion that Taiwan is subject to a condominium or that its title is undetermined holds no water.
Perry Pei-hwang Shen
Director-general,
Department of Treaty and Legal Affairs,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Mainland Affairs Council Deputy Minister Shen You-chung (沈有忠) on Thursday last week urged democratic nations to boycott China’s military parade on Wednesday next week. The parade, a grand display of Beijing’s military hardware, is meant to commemorate the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II. While China has invited world leaders to attend, many have declined. A Kyodo News report on Sunday said that Japan has asked European and Asian leaders who have yet to respond to the invitation to refrain from attending. Tokyo is seeking to prevent Beijing from spreading its distorted interpretation of wartime history, the report
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
RSS